Fediverse, grassroots, native, trust, openness, and collaboration

One thing we really need to compost is the often invisible conflict between the native commons-based approach and the realities of capitalist infrastructure—particularly in how we fund, organize, and maintain spaces, for example #FediForum. It is hard to get across this invisible #blocking . The perspective, of ideological exclusion rather than the money itself being an issue, though of course it is. this captures a deeper issue about how certain approaches (like paywalls) alienate grassroots communities, even if the cost is minimal or scholarships are available.

We need to see the value in both native and #mainstreaming paths, the native path of the Fediverse and related #openweb movements grew organically from gift economies and volunteer-driven efforts. As did a lot of openweb work, including the ActivityPub standard, which was developed in such spaces, without the need for a paywall or corporate sponsorship. This ethos is central to the commons-building process, where trust, collaboration, and openness are valued more than monetization or statues in formal hard structures.

In the example of FediForum you can see contrast, mainstreaming, paywalls, closed applications, proprietary tools like Zoom and Eventbrite, etc. While they may argue that these tools and models are necessary to cover costs, they create barriers for those who have historically contributed to the commons, in this they are unthinkably enclosing, pushing these paths. The point that the paywall is an ideological barrier, not merely a financial one, is critical. For many in the grassroots community, the introduction of a paywall—even if it’s just $2 or $40—symbolizes a shift away from open, accessible organizing. It’s not just about affordability; it’s about how the space is structured and who it’s structured for.

Events organized without paywalls, based on voluntary contributions, have historically worked because they maintained a native, commons-based ethos. They relied on the trust and collaboration of participants, who donated time, energy, and resources to make things happen without needing to resort to gatekeeping mechanisms like paywalls. With this in mind, we need to try and move conversations that can so easily turn nasty and negative into building bridges, not undermining foundations. The solution lies in acknowledging the strengths of both paths, native and mainstreaming, and finding a way to link them, rather than blindly pushing for one path to dominate and enclose the other.

Actions for Bridge-Building: Ideas and actions for how we might approach this challenge pragmatically, without compromising on the core values of the native common’s path:

Transparent Linking: Start by linking to other paths. Our example FediForum can openly acknowledge and link to grassroots spaces like SocialHub, recognizing that both are part of the larger network. This small step would create a bridge rather than a division.
FOSS Infrastructure is absolutely basic. Push for the use of open-source alternatives to #dotcons tools like Zoom and Eventbrite. This could include tools we have successfully used before , BigBlueButton, Jitsi or other FOSS video conferencing platforms, alongside commons-based event platforms. Even if these tools mean volunteers agreeing to host, the ideological message is different: they are part of the #openweb rather than a concession to the #dotcons proprietary mess.
Open Scholarship Programs: While some financial costs are unavoidable, events could offer open, transparent scholarship programs, as FediForum did at the first event, not just token offerings but significant pathways for those in the grassroots to attend for free. This can help balance the ideological exclusion of paywalls.
Co-organization with Grassroots: Instead of the mainstreaming path of dominating, events really need to engage in co-organization with grassroots communities, ensuring a balance of perspectives. The #OGB would help this issue, as for example, fediforum could be an affiliate stakeholder. This would be a step toward more commons-based governance and event management.
Decentralized Organizing Models: An option (am this is NOT compulsory) would be to take a cue from successful decentralized networks like the Fediverse itself, where governance and organizing can be shared across multiple nodes. In our example, FediForum could adopt a more structurally decentralized organizing model, where grassroots actors have a say in how the event is structured, funded, and run.

What we are talking about here is recognizing different realities, yes we do live in capitalist societies, and sometimes the realities of funding and infrastructure cannot be ignored. However, recognizing this doesn’t mean fully conceding to the #mainstreaming path. Instead, there can be a balance where the native commons ethos is preserved while finding sustainable ways to support events and initiatives. This is actually how the THING we are talking about was originally built, this is what I am calling “native”.

The commons-based path is not simply about ideals; it’s about creating structures that are inclusive, accessible, and genuinely collaborative. While mainstream forces may argue for pragmatism (paywalls, proprietary tools), we do need to push back for a #KISS solution, transparent linking and FOSS tools, offers a simple yet profound bridge. This is how we can grow diversity and ensure that the Fediverse remains a grassroots, native space where trust, openness, and collaboration thrive.

Let’s try a #fluffy path:

An important point about the invisible barriers that people face, which aren’t always immediately understood by others involved in conversation like this. For many grassroots contributors, the imposition of a paywall feels like an act of enclosure, a kind of taking of space that they had a hand in building. This is often not visible to those who approach these events from a more #mainstreaming or #NGO mindset.

To address this “invisible problem” We need to keep emphasizing the importance of recognizing this divide, not as an attack but as an opportunity for mutual understanding. The more people on the mainstreaming path can see how their actions might be excluding core contributors, the more likely bridges can be built. Encourage people to step into the shoes of those who feel excluded, and help them understand that this isn’t just about access or money—it’s about respecting the ethos and history of the movement.

The #mainstreaming is always filled with imperialism, we need to mediate this mess making

The imperialism visible in FediForum is a part of the broader critique of the culture surrounding it, that can help to highlight a core issue in the evolution of the openweb and grassroots activism: the tension between #mainstreaming (enclosure) and grassroots commons (open, decentralized commons paths).

The Cultural Divide, the culture around FediForum is #NGO and #liberal, #dotcons-friendly, a path that tends to centralize control and enclosure, even in discussions about decentralization. The use of #closedsource tools like Zoom and Eventbrite highlights this contradiction. This cultural divide is significant, grassroots communities, including those on SocialHub, reject participation in spaces dominated by tools and processes that contradict the #4opens values. While this isn’t necessarily about whether the individuals involved are “good or bad,” it’s crucial to acknowledge the cultural influence of #NGO and corporate models, that seek to enclose and professionalize what should remain a grassroots, commons-based path, we need to do this so as not to simply end up enclosing the commons in ignorant “common sense” paths. Now that’s a mouth twister 😉

Lack of a Bridge, suggests a commons-oriented solution—a bridge between these two cultural approaches through transparent linking and collaboration between different projects (e.g., FediForum and SocialHub) which would respect the decentralized nature of the #openweb. I personally talk to them about this at the first event, unfortunately, this advice was ignored, and the #NGO path continued, leading to the ideological exclusion of grassroots participants who have been building the Fediverse and the openweb for years at this paywalled event

The #4opens is useful to highlight what for meany people is an invisible, thus unimportant divide:

Applying the #4opens framework is a helpful way to assess the project’s alignment with the openweb’s foundational values. Here’s a quick DRAFT breakdown of how FediForum fares:

Open Data: They are somewhat open, using Creative Commons licenses and publishing event videos openly, but the paywall during the events limits input and participation, reducing the openness. Partial TICK.

Open Source: The CMS might be FOSS, but the reliance on closed-source platforms for the events themselves (Zoom, Eventbrite) contradicts the open-source ethos. Half TICK or none.

Open Industrial Standards: Limited to some RSS feeds, but the integration of proprietary platforms makes it hard to give full credit here. No TICK.

Open Process: Organizing is closed, with paywalled events, though the unconference format allows for more open discussions. However, the ideological closure to many grassroots participants remains. Half TICK.

At best, this makes FediForum a bronze #4opens project with significant room for improvement. At worst, it’s not aligned with the #4opens, thus the #openweb at all.

Moving Forward, what’s missing is a mediation space where these different paths can intersect without one side dominating the other. This space could look like the #OGB with each participant being an affiliate stakeholder https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody

The path that keeps “commons” open is activism, which is about making it hard for these values to be ignored. In this case, we could start this by pushing for the adoption of simple steps like linking and transparency (#KISS). This can begin to rebuild bridges that better reflects the diverse contributions of all involved, without closing doors on those who helped build it in the first place.

Is #fediforum a #4opens project?

This is a DRAFT as have not looked at this project deeply for a while.

Look past what they say, look at what they do #4opens.

The #4opens are a simple way to judge the value of an “alt/grassroots” tech project.

* Open data – is the basic part of a project. Without this openness, they cannot function. Open data is essential for transparency and collaboration.

- The are pretty open on this and use CC license, the are some RSS feeds. But input into the events is paywalled so closed, after the event videos are published as open. A full TICK or a half TICK

* Open source – refers to “free software.” This keeps development healthy by increasing interconnectedness and fostering serendipity. Open licences, such as Creative Commons. Open source FOSS encourages collaboration and innovation.

- am not sure what CMS they use but likely #FOSS. They use a a mashup of closed source #dotcons for the events. Half TICK or non?

* Open “industrial” standards – are foundational for the open internet and WWW Open standards ensure interoperability and compatibility, enabling diverse systems to work together seamlessly.

The are some RSS feeds on the sites but this is it, the #dotcons used for the events make this hard to give a tick so no TICK

* Open process – is the most nebulous part but crucial for collaboration and trust. Examples include wikis and activity streams. Open process ensures that project workflows are transparent and participatory.

- the organizing of events and process to organize the events are closed, the events themselves being unconferences are open. But are paywalled so ideologically closed to meany people.

Half a TICK to be positive

It’s easy to become a #4opens project and join the #openweb path:

2 opens: Bronze badge
3 opens: Silver badge
4 opens: Gold badge

So we have a wide spread for this project at worst, not a #4opens project with one TICK at best a bronze #4opens project with 2 TICKS that needs improvement.

DRAFT

We need to balance this mess making

The paywalled #FediForum, while billed as “the unconference for those moving the Fediverse forward,” is thin on the ground when it comes to real, impactful “native” voices. The grassroots actors who are notably absent from these spaces are far more significant in shaping the #openweb path than the #NGO and #dotcons interests pushing #mainstreaming.

It’s important to notice this and remember where you stand in this network. Yes, we’re struggling and making a mess on our grassroots path, but we’re still here. On the other hand, those on the #mainstreaming path are few but make up for their lack of presence by generating noise and occupying space.

This is still a grassroots project, and we, the “native” people on the #openweb, are the vibrant threads in the tapestry. #NGOs and even the #dotcons can join in, but they are not at the core. We are the core. Balancing the signal-to-noise ratio, while noisy forces try to drown us out, requires active mediation—activism, plain and simple.

Stay engaged, stay noisy in a good way, and keep pushing the #4opens path.

Is Mastodon a #4opens project

The #4opens are a simple way to judge the value of an “alt/grassroots” tech project.

Open data – is the basic part of a project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data without this open they cannot work.

You can get your data out with RSS and AP and vie user export, so TICK

Open source – as in “free software” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software this keeps development healthy by increasing interconnectedness and bringing in serendipity. The Open licences are the “lock” that keep the first two in place, what we have isn’t perfect, but they do expand the area of “trust” that a project needs to work, creative commons is a start here.

It has a #FOSS licence TICK

Open “industrial” standards – this is a little understood but core open, it’s what the open internet and WWW are built from. Here is an outline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

Here it’s problematic, it supports atom/RSS good, but is AP support is pushing broken HALF TICK

Open process – this is the most “nebulous” part, examples of the work flow would be wikis and activity streams. Projects are built on linking trust networks, so open process is the “glue” that binds the links together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process

It uses #github a #dotcons platform, which kinda has open process but is in meany ways unresponsive to this #openprocess HALF TICK

Solidarity

It’s easy to become a #4opens project and join the #openweb family. Just show that your project fulfils 2 or more of the above “opens”.

2 opens - Bronze badge
3 opens - Silver badge
4 opens - Gold badge

This makes 3 opens, so Mastodon is a silver #4opens project, to become gold it needs to improve its standards competence and/or work at better open process.

The victim card in activism

There’s a pervasive and damaging cycle in activist and alternative communities that we need to recognize and break, the victimhood narrative. This is not about dismissing genuine struggles or the real problems we face (and let’s be clear, we all have these in abundance on alternative paths). What I’m talking about is the deliberate use of victimhood as a tactic, a card played to push an agenda or gain sympathy at the expense of collective progress.

When someone plays the victim card, it sets off a feedback loop. Others pick up on this narrative, and whether they mean to or not, they reinforce it. Before long, the person who played the card becomes trapped in their own creation. They become victims of the very narrative they set in motion. Those who latch onto this story to push their own agendas also fall into the trap, ultimately damaging the causes they claim to support.

This tactic does more harm than good. It doesn’t address the actual issues we’re facing; instead, it creates a toxic distraction that undermines real work that we need to do. By focusing on the victim narrative, we lose sight of the bigger picture, the subjects we should be addressing with urgency and clarity.

Let’s stop and think. Let’s step away from this destructive loop. We need to be clear about the real issues and not allow this negative narrative to cloud our judgment and derail our efforts.

Please, don’t reinforce this mess.

On the other hand, there are real victims, but these people aren’t playing card games, recognizing the difference should not be so hard for people.

The victimhood narrative needs composting

The process of challenging this mess making runs into the #mainstreaming of safety culture, we can reflect on Douglas Gwyn’s famous quote about Unix:

“Unix was not designed to stop people from doing stupid things, because that would also stop them from doing clever things.”

This is a powerful insight into the dangers of blinded regulation and unthinking control in tech and social paths. The quote speaks to the value of bindings of strong #4opens process in design, which allows for creativity, experimentation, and the change and challenge we need to build trust, yes there is the cost of occasional mistakes it’s a price we pay for taking this path.

Safety culture, particularly as it gets pushed into more regulated, closed systems, stifles the our humanistic experimentation we need to tackle the challenges ahead. The push to make everything safe, moderated, and controlled risks, creating paths where nothing truly transformative can happen. It feeds into the #mainstreaming #deathcult path of conformity, where other paths are sacrificed for the sake of avoiding “mistakes”.

By maintaining an #4opens process, as with Unix, we create spaces where people are allowed to fail and, in doing so, come up with new solutions, something that’s becoming more and more vital in the context of our ongoing struggles against #climatechaos, #dotcons dominance, and other meany systemic issues we face.

We need to balance this tension between safety and creativity, recognizing that without the latter, we inadvertently push the very problems we’re trying to solve.

To get past people being lost and thus pointless, It’s useful to frame left and right as driven by fundamental emotional motivators—fear for the right and trust for the left, a way to cut through the complexities of political debates. This lens highlights how cycles of fear perpetuate control-oriented agendas, while trust foster openness and collaboration. It’s a powerful way to step outside the immediate mess, recognizing the #KISS dynamics at play.

Do you think this could be used to influence current #openweb projects and the paths they take amidst #mainstreaming pressures?

Mastodon, Meta and Threads

For people who focus on working with the #dotcons there are meany traps, and a lot of dead-ends. This is less of an issue for people fighting them, the problem here is “common sense” #blocking this second path which is a much less lucrative and a thank less task. So we will continue to have more people on the first path. A post that grew from a toot seed, I wonder if Mastodon is to Meta what Firefox once was to Google a small but significant project that big corporations can point to whenever regulators start murmuring about monopolies.

In the early #openweb days, #Firefox was seen as the open-source challenger to the #dotcons of Internet Explorer and later Google Chrome. The NGO #PR represented it as a scrappy, independent alternative, championing the openweb against the increasing dominance of corporate-controlled browsers. But over time, and a lot of funding, Firefox became a tool for companies like Google to gesture toward whenever their monopolistic practices were questioned., “Look, there’s competition! We’re not the only game in town.” The blotted NGO that Firefox became, let the dotcons who funded them, maintain the appearance of a healthy, diverse internet while consolidating power and control.

Today, Mastodon, the corporation, and new NGO projects like the #SWF are likely, unthinkingly, to end up playing a similar role for Meta (#Failbook). With #Meta’s monopoly and influence across social media, platforms like Mastodon offer a symbolic counterpoint. The wider #Fediverse, decentralized, federated model, the alternative “nativist” path, that rejects the data-harvesting, surveillance capitalism model perfected by Meta and the rest of the #dotcons. But in a world where Meta dominates user attention, advertising dollars, and social engagement, the existence of Fediverse when we push #NGO agenda, as people will, like most people did with Firefox could feel more like a token gesture toward competition than a real threat that it needs to be.

The danger on the NGO paths is that Mastodon, and the Fediverse becomes a shield for Meta, just as Firefox was for Google. With the regulators knocking, Meta points to Mastodon and say, “See? There’s healthy competition in the market.” Meanwhile, our grassroots #DIY path will continue to struggle with the challenges that come from operating, outside the #mainstreaming, on the margins, limited resources, scalability, and the constant threat of being drowned out by the sheer weight of the dotcons inflow into our grassroots #openweb reboot.

The truth is, while #4opens decentralized paths like Fediverse are vital to the change and challenge we need, not to mention keeping the spirit of the #openweb alive, they’re still pushing hard for space in a corporate-dominated internet. If we only take the #mainstreaming and NGO path, the existence of projects could be used by the dotcons to maintain their monopoly while paying lip service to “competition.”

The question, can we really afford to be only the ‘token alternative’ when the stakes are so high? Or do we need to find a way to build native projects that not only stands apart from the #dotcons, but also changes and challenges them on equal ground? It’s time to think beyond being the counterculture, and start focusing on how we grow and sustain real #4opens alternatives. If we don’t, if we cop out on #fluffy only paths, there is a danger that we’ll just keep serving as convenient props in mainstream monopoly charade.

Let’s try very hard not to be irrelevant in the fight for humanity and ecological sustainability in the era of #climatechaos and social brake down being pushed by the #mainstreaming mess making, we are composting.

The #openweb, a partnership, not a nasty walk over

On the subject of #NGO foundations for the #openweb what do they do with this money https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/262852431 this one is shutting down, and this one is in trouble https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200097189 This kinda funding could cover the costs of the #Fediverse hundreds of times over…. what do they do exactly?

#Fediverse, Definitions, and Building Activist Communities

The question of definitions, particularly around the “Fediverse” and its relationship with the ActivityPub protocol (AP), has become messy due to the influx of #mainstreaming people, this has sparked a lot of mostly unhelpful debate. Let’s be clear, there is no real “Fediverse” without #AP. Since Mastodon’s shift to AP, the entire Fediverse has been built around this protocol. Trying to separate the two or debating the definition at this point feels a reactionary and more noise than signal.

One thing that these #mainstreaming people find hard to understand, thus except, is that the Fediverse isn’t an organized movement but rather a disorganized space full of mythos and traditions. The only solid thing, for better or worse, is the badly implemented ActivityPub protocol, and even that is a work in progress, and not without issues. Outside of AP, there are meany different protocols and projects that bridge into this a loose, difficult to define neatly #openweb path. Yes, things are changing, and let’s engage with these changes, focusing on fighting over abstract definitions is not very productive.

Now, onto the tricky topic of the “dominance of white, techno-libertarian guys” in the space. While it’s an issue worth acknowledging, it’s not practically very central, it’s a part of the messy path. The Fediverse is built on #4opens and #DIY principles. It is best to ignore if you can or tolerate the presence of techno-libertarian individuals, as these people are largely noise rather than core to the project. The real barriers to entry are basic technical skills and community-building. This space is actually perfect for the #fluffy side of any activist movement, including a potential #BPP (Black Panther Party) reboot that needs to happen.

Then there’s the idea of “protocol supremacists” using ActivityPub to reinforce their dominance. Yes, you can smell a bit of this, but it’s not actually important or widespread as some people push. The Fediverse was built with almost no money and very little power, so there’s not much for people to hold onto in terms of control. The gatekeeping you see is real from a few players, but they’re not too bad (so far). However, you’re right that things are likely to change as more institutional power and #NGO types enter the space.

Our internal fixations on insider language like “Eternal September” and “Eternal November” is just this, insider language that’s not particularly useful for most people. The focus remains on the core issues of community-building and the challenges of maintaining the decentralized, #openweb ethos in the face of outside pressures.

As for the racism and toxicity that exists, in huge amounts in the #dotcons and in some corners of the Fediverse, the key is this: Don’t go looking for the worst people, and if they find you, block them quickly. The community is built on #4opens and #DIY principles, meaning you have control over community spaces. Building a supportive network takes time, but once established, you can block out the toxicity effectively. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem—build your community first, then deal with the bad actors as they come.

Finally, let’s talk about the lack of digital drugs—those addictive elements you find on #dotcons like Facebook or Twitter. The Fediverse doesn’t have these hooks, so getting people to stay when things turn messy is harder than you might expect. This is why community-building is so crucial. Activist communities need to focus on strong #4opens process and then support networks and positive action based paths to create spaces people want to stay in, despite the inevitable challenges.

The #Fediverse is messy, yes. But within that mess, there’s a lot of potential. It’s up to us to cultivate it.

The #openweb, a partnership, not a nasty walk over

We are seeing a flood of #dotcons making their way into spaces built on our #4opens principles. Their arrival forces us to consider the future we want, and if we can mediate this encroachment for a better path. How can we work to keep this positive?

Some perspectives on this:

Bridging the Gap: Some advocate that we can mediate the space between the #openweb and the incoming corporate influence. This camp believes in building bridges that allow for coexistence and negotiation between the two worlds.
Inevitable Takeover: Others feel that the corporate takeover of these spaces is inevitable. They believe we are powerless to stop it, and perhaps the best we can do is find ways to adapt.
Bunkering Down: Then there are those who think we should focus entirely on the native path, resisting and weathering the storm. By sticking to our principles and building resilient spaces, we can outlast the wave of corporate interest.
Survivalists: Surprisingly, a large number of people fall into the camp of pragmatism—those who need grants and funding to survive. For them, the path we take is secondary to personal survival, though this motivation is often hidden, leading to unhelpful or diluted activism.
Tech Activism: And finally, there’s a group dedicated to leveraging the native #openweb path to challenge the status quo. They seek to compost the current mess, using activism to bring about the meaningful change we need.
Please add more perspectives in the comments…

The #SocialWebFoundation (SWF) seems to fit into the first category—attempting to mediate between these worlds. Meanwhile, spaces like #SocialHub are a mix of the rest, where different perspectives clash and combine.

It’s clear that this situation is messy, and we’re unlikely to reach a consensus, this diversity of thought is the real native path. But with this clearly in mind, action is still needed. The question remains: how do we build a consensus that is necessary to take effective action on the #DIY, openweb? If we fail as we are now, it’s the #SWF and the #dotcons who will walk the paths we build and talk about, leaving us as increasingly bystanders in our own spaces.

Let’s talk about how we have power in this narrative to keep the #openweb native path at the centre of these shifts and turns, and this is a real partnership, not a nasty walk over.

Oligarchy, Monarchy, and the Future of Governance of the #OpenWeb

Oligarchy, Monarchy, and the Future of Governance of the #openweb

The governance model of the Social Web Foundation (#SWF) aligns with oligarchy, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, echoing the structures of monarchy normally seen within the broader #FOSS movement. Both oligarchic and monarchic may work for some traditional organizations, but they are not native to the organic, decentralized ethos of the #openweb, which has always been more anarchic in its path.

As we reboot the #openweb to resist and mediate the encroachment of corporate #dotcons, we need a governance path that is native to our space of fluid, decentralized movement. For this, we have been developing the Open Governance Body (#OGB) as a native tech and social solution, rooted in the same principles of federation that power the #Fediverse. It’s designed to be permissionless, allowing seamless adoption across platforms, enabling a truly open and resilient network that resists centralized control that is so strongly pushing into this #reboot.

The Fediverse dilemma is efficiency vs. values. Some people argue that the Fediverse isn’t “efficient” or capable of “capturing market share” like big tech platforms. While scalability and usability are important, it’s crucial to remember that the Fediverse’s success comes not from corporate metrics like profit margins or user acquisition, but from grassroots movements, affinity groups, and real needs. The challenge lies in creative “stitching”, in building networks that scale while maintaining the core #4opens values of openness, decentralization, and permissionlessness.

Big tech’s model is horribly efficient at addiction and control, but at the loss of community, autonomy, and creativity. We don’t need to replicate their model. Instead, we #KISS focus on the values that make the #openweb unique: cooperation, shared governance, and, most importantly, people’s agency.

Why OGB and OMN Matter, the Open Governance Body (#OGB) is built from decades of activist organizing, and like the #OMN (Open Media Network), it’s designed for the public good. Both projects are rooted in the belief that we already have working models, proven over 200 years of social activism—that can guide us in building alternative tech solutions to resist the corrosive influence of corporate power

If you’re interested in how we can compost the current tech mess, have a read about the concepts of #composting on this site and learn more about the #OGB and #OMN. We can’t keep creating the same #techshit mess, by understanding these alternative paths can we walk together, a path toward a truly #openweb that is so needed in this era of #climatechaos

How to think about governance https://lovergine.com/foss-governance-and-sustainability-in-the-third-millennium.html

The path out of this mess is in part social tech, we need to build this path

The current path of distraction’s and #stupidindividualism push the cycle of pointless noise that is feeding into our inability to focus on real change. People are busy, swept up in these distractions, and pointless pursuits to be the change and challenge they need to be. It’s a cycle of complacency with a bad outcome. Agitation, anger, and disturbance are powerful motivators, but we need to focus into something meaningful, to avoid drowning in the noise, we need to focus on what’s actually going on. But, in this mess, how do we push people to grow up and focus without falling into the trap of more #blocking or just offering more distractions or ‘better bling’?

The answer is simple and #KISS, by recreating collectives. We’ve seen first hand how hyper individualism (#stupidindividualism) isolates people, leaving them powerless against larger systemic issues. Rebuilding real, engaged, and active communities is key. Movements like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and #4opens are examples of initiatives that become the change and challenge we need. These projects draw from undercurrents of ideas that we know work, combining them with the best of #openweb tech to grow from small seeds into real change.

But it’s also essential to dig at the roots of the mess: #pomo (#postmodernism) and the #deathcult (#neoliberalism), ideologies that have shaped the mess we’re in, cynicism and cutting off collective alternatives. If we don’t address these root issues, they will keep returning, and we’ll remain stuck in the same cycles of decay.

The #geekproblem is real, it’s the problem of domination and control born out of geek culture shaped by “common sense” paths. Look at the decline of the #dotcons like #failbook and Google, where #fashionista optimism gave way to corporate greed. Then look at early days of #openweb projects like #couchsurfing and #indymedia, we had healthy, thriving native cultures that weren’t obsessed with control. The key is to recognize what went wrong and build on a path that doesn’t repeat those mistakes.

What the #dotcons think the future is, from meta

The challenge is that many within geek culture can’t see the value of projects like #OMN, as it exists outside their narrow, “common sense” world-views. We need to help people see beyond the obvious, look for non-mainstream alternatives, and recognize that the solutions aren’t in the corporate web but in the decentralized, open spaces, commons, we create ourselves.

Now is the time to reboot our own media and to be wary of #fashionista agendas that hijack and dilute the change we need. The way forward is messy, organic, and rooted in collective action. What we can do:

Agitate and Disturb: Use media, art, and culture to push people out of their comfort zones and make them question the status quo. The hashtag story is a tool to do this.
Build Collectives: Recreate spaces where people can work together meaningfully, paths that empower communities to balance the current #stupidindividualism. The OMN are projects for this.
Focus on the Roots: Don’t only address symptoms, dig deep into the core ideologies that keep returning and haunting us, like #pomo and the #deathcult. This website is a tool for this
Reboot Media: We need to take back control of our media, using open technology to create alternatives that aren’t based on capitalist greed but on #KISS shared values. There is a native project for this indymediaback
Stay Wary of Distractions: Resist the temptation of ‘better bling.’ The solution is not to make the distractions shinier, but to focus on what matters.

The path out of this mess is in part social tech, which we need to build. It’s time to grow up, pay attention, and start building the world we actually want to live in. A shovel is need to compost the current mess #OMN. But I don’t have the focus to do this, we need a crew.

The key part of this is WHO decides, this is a political and democratic issue, not a tech “problem” we need to build with this strongly in mind.

Where do you see the opportunity for these dialogues

The current path in “governance” of the #Fediverse is a few people and money, where other people live and create the value of our native #openweb path. This is oligarchy at best, if you think about this, is this what we won’t? How can we, actuary, tell what we won’t, if not what can we do about this?

A critical issue with #SocialWebFoundation is that they’re avoiding real change and challenge, which by default leads to a “safe path” of the commercialization of the #Fediverse. This #NGO path is about keeping a seat at the table, but history tells us it is always unproductive without engaging in deeper structural shifts.

The current lack of user and admin representation on the SWF board clearly signals elitism, which diminishes the collaborative, grassroots potential for native decentralized networks of “governance”. Which without this, we move to a corporate entrenchment rather than fostering the liberating potential of the #openweb we have spent the last 5 years building.

One potential solution is embracing #openprocess, backed by activism, as a way forward. While it may be an uncomfortable path for the wannabe establishment, this path is necessary to preserve the integrity of decentralized platforms and our reboot in the openweb space. Open governance and participatory, maintain transparency and avoid the top-down elitist structures currently being reinforced by the “common sense” #NGO default being imposed.

To start this conversation, we could actively push for deeper community engagement, cultivating dialogues around representation, and organizing inclusive spaces where server admins, users, and activists can voice concerns and meaningfully influence decision-making processes. However, a key challenge lies in whether it’s even worth pushing this path, as many within the establishment will block any understanding or discussion about the need for such structural shifts.

It’s worth reflecting on how many early #dotcons initially tried to be #openweb native, but found it impossible to reconcile with the profit-driven structures of dotcons. The same is happening now, and it’s important to ask: Can we forge a better path this time around? Clearly, the NGO-driven model isn’t the answer. Exploring frameworks like the #OGB (Open Governance Body) would provide a more transparent, accountable, and community-driven alternative, avoiding the pitfalls we’ve seen before.

You can find more details about the OGB here: Open Governance Body (OGB).

Question, where do you see the best opportunity to initiate these dialogues and get past the resistance to real change to walk the path we acturly are walking.

We need to compost, meany of the replies to these subjects as they often exemplify the #stupidindividualism that plagues conversations. Instead of engaging in collective, systemic thinking, people fall back on dismissive, reactionary attitudes: “I’ll wait and see,” or “If they mess up, I’ll just ignore them.” This approach sidesteps the responsibility we have to shape the #Fediverse and #openweb decentralized networks. It’s not about waiting for corporations like #Meta to make a move or some #NGO driven entity to fail, it’s about organizing from the ground up and mediating these incursions before they can set deep roots.

I use the hashtag #stupidindividualism as it illustrates what the “ignoring” means, that damage has already been done. Once corporate influence is in place, it’s harder to reclaim grassroots paths, which is why we need collective action now, not after bad decisions have been made. The “I’ll just ignore them if I don’t like it” mindset is dangerously passive, and has a very bad history. It’s not good to hope the right decisions will be made by those in power while reserving judgment until it’s too late.

The #fediverse was never meant to bow unquestioned to the corporate agenda or chase explosive growth at the expense of native paths. The focus needs to be on building a diverse, sustainable, and resilient ecosystem from the bottom up. In this we can’t afford to stand by, waiting for others to decide our fate, if we do, we’ll end up entangled in the same corporate mess the #openweb was originally meant to avoid. If you have any thought, the time to act on this was yesterday, not keeping watching from the sidelines.

Please try not to be a prat about this, thanks.